It's a very convenient way of avoiding all the other stuff in his post that you want to pretend doesn't exist, isn't it?

Very convenient and also perfectly honest to boot.

Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

Considering the exorbitant amount of laws and regulations and taxes and tests involving ownership and use of automobiles compared to the carefree wild free-for-all surrounding gun ownership...there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

I know that vastly more people use automobiles everyday than guns but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

Maybe I should start an automobile fail thread.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2013, 10:24:32 PM by Mr. Blackwell »

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

I don't understand why You or Chronos or anyone else can't imagine a world where people do not always follow the laws. Or why Chronos argues that it is not even possible to violate the law in the first place.

That is all.

It's an argument fail in my book because if it was not possible to break the law....we wouldn't have any fucking criminals.

I have never said it is impossible to violate the law(s), nor did I imply it. I see people violate laws/regulations all the time, at least specifically with respect to the ownership and operation of motor vehicles, but they don't usually get away with their violations for very long.

From the very beginning, I have stated that there are more laws/regulations for vehicle ownership and operation than there are for firearms. If you want me to recount the number of ways that people violate the laws/regulations for vehicle ownership or operations, I can easily do that. Nevertheless, the purpose of my lengthy responses was to counter your assertion that gun owners have to suffer with more laws/regulations than car owners or drivers.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

While laws and regulations are designed to encourage proper behavior, all that laws and regulations can really accomplish is to specify punishments when violations occur.

People have been murdered ever since humans kept records (and likely well before that), so even laws that decree it is a violation to kill another human haven't stopped anyone from doing so but they do stipulate the penalty if one is found guilty.

.. there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

The other day I found the PDF at the CDC website on this issue, but I didn't bookmark it because I didn't think anyone was going to raise this particular issue. Silly me. The CDC site is too vast to find things quickly, so until I can locate the info again I will have to slum it at Wikipedia. This Wiki article shows the same trend in vehicle deaths since the inception of the automobile.

The peak rate of auto deaths per 100K population was in 1937. The peak of automobile deaths (raw) was 1972. The rate of deaths per Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT = middle column), which is the gold standard for efficacy, shows that the rate of vehicular deaths (all circumstances) has been in a steady decline since the inception of the automobile despite an ever-growing population and an ever-increasing number of automobiles and miles traveled. You will note that the raw number of vehicle deaths in 2012 is about 33,000.

I found the chart at the CDC the other day that compared autos to firearms and it showed that the deaths by firearms are slightly less than the number of deaths by vehicles, 32,XXX. However, I can't find that chart today. Here is a Pew Research article that shows that in 2010 suicides by firearms were 19,392 and homocides by firearms were 11,078, which totals 30,470 deaths by firearms (unless there is another category that they didn't include).

If you wish to argue that the raw number of deaths by vehicles are greater than raw number of deaths by firearms, you would be correct, but just barely.

I know that vastly more people use automobiles everyday than guns but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

Correct, you won't. They can't. The comparison can't be made directly because there is no way to accurately compare the two more than the raw number of deaths.

First, since firearms aren't registered in the US, we really don't know the number of firearms that are actually out there so a comparison to the number of registered vehicles would not be accurate or helpful. Could some of the firearms produced in the US have been shipped out of the country? Yes. Second, as I stated above, the deaths by Vehicle Miles Traveled is the number to watch. That shows that through greater and greater usage of more and more automobiles, the rate of deaths has been on a downward trend for a long time.

One thing that should be noted is that by the late 1960s/early 1970s, the number of automobiles rapidly increased and so did the Vehicle Miles Traveled. Around that same time, due to various efforts to increase the laws and regulations for the safety of automobiles, most notably by Ralph Nader, the rate of deaths per VMT began to drop at a faster rate than before. As we have increased the regulations and requirements over the past 30 years the rate of deaths by VMT has been in a faster decline, and even more dramatically the rate of accidents by VMT has seen an even more dramatic decline.

While the creation of laws does not mean people will not violate them, by having laws and regulations in place that affect the head of the process (where cars are made, roads are designed and drivers are trained), we have been able to dramatically reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicular accidents, as well as the rate of vehicular accidents without injury.

What have we done to affect the head of the process for firearms? Very little. Everyone cries fowl when anyone attempts to do so.

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

Maybe I should start an automobile fail thread.

By their nature, firearms more routinely kill people than injure them. Vehicles more routinely injure people than kill them. As I stated above, the efforts to improve the design of vehicles and highways, and to improve the training and monitoring of drivers means fewer people are killed in vehicular accidents each year (and even fewer have been injured). In the vast majority of cases, deaths by firearms are intentional while deaths by vehicle are accidental.

The only way to accurately compare the two based on population, penetration or usage, would be to compare the number of bullets fired (rate of usage) with the number of VMT. But there is no way to compare the two. Although gun owners buy ammunition, that doesn't mean that the ammunition has been fired or even how much has been fired. Given the fear frenzy acquired by gun owners on their own (not to mention the fear frenzy caused by the media), gun owners have been stockpiling ammunition at a rate that likely has no comparison to any time in history. Ergo, we cannot compare the number of firearms deaths to the number of bullets purchased as we can the vehicular deaths to the number of miles driven. Most people buy cars to use them daily (or at least a couple of times a week). Most people do not shoot the guns they own weekly, and many do not shoot their guns annually. This would indicate people remain better trained in the usage of an automobile than the usage of a firearm.

Now, an interesting discussion would be, Do we care about the rate of deaths or injuries caused by either firearms or vehicles? Is the ownership and use of firearms and vehicles more important than the damages they cause?

There is a question about gun ownership with a subtle context: Since firearms are more often used for suicides than homocides, does the American "gun culture" desire firearms so citizens can easily commit suicide?

Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

...there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

Why do you think that might be? I can think of a few reasons.

Here's another quandary: there are vastly more laws and regulations regarding commercial aircraft than cars, and there there vastly fewer airline accidents that kill people. Why do you think that might be?

...but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

Oh gosh, I wonder where someone might find something like that? Well, it's not sitting right in front of you, so I suppose it couldn't possibly exist out there anywhere. You've done your due dilligence (by that I mean, "absolutely nothing"), so it's probably fair to give up and just assume you're right.

You know, if you put forth a little more effort, you might find some acutal data. Or not, given that the NRA lobbied to have congress make it illegal for the CDC to study gunshot injuries.[1]

For men especially, it is considered a bad thing to kill yourself; it's cowardly because you should be able to man up and face your problems. That is why men are more likely to "go postal" or commit "suicide by cop". Unfortunately they often take other people with them, like their family, co-workers and the cops.

Women just take too many pills and don't wake up. Men have to disguise suicide as something else, reckless drunk driving at night, for example. But if you "accidentally" shoot yourself to death while hunting or cleaning your gun, it's a kinda macho and acceptable.

I wonder how many people who own a gun say they want to protect themselves from the bad guys, but they really want to make sure they have a way out if they need it?

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

When you use the word damage that implies any and all losses whether physical (bodily injury) or financial (loss of assets). Damages can also be partial or absolute. I cannot find the stats, but it would seem to me that firearms cause more absolute damages (death) rather than partial damages (injuries). Vehicles most frequently cause partial damages (for repairs/injuries) rather than absolute (total losses/deaths).

I believe you are trying to argue that vehicles cause more damages (of any kind) and, therefore, are rightfully regulated more than firearms. The problem is that because regulations have been progressively put in place, drivers have fewer and fewer accidents every year (insurance refers to this as frequency) but the cost of those accidents are increasing every year (insurance refers to this as severity). In this respect, "accidents" refer to any incidents causing damages regardless of any injuries or deaths involved.

Since we have few regulations for firearms, and in some cases even fewer regulations than before, how can we possibly compare the success of missing laws and regulations for firearms compared to the ever-present laws and regulations for operating a vehicle? Why can't we try some regulations on firearms and see how it works?

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

36,000 die each year in gun related violence/accidents. More than in any other country. Why do we need that?

I am not sure what point Mr Blackwell is trying to make in comparing cars to guns. Gas ovens, computers, hammers and bathtubs are all very useful but can also kill and injure people. But we have not enshrined the ownership of any of those into our national laws, culture and psyche.

In the US we have a particular relationship to guns that many other cultures do not have. I teach college classes with perhaps half of the students from Africa, Asia, Latin Am and former Soviet countries. The rest are US students, mostly lower-middle to middle class.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing that I have a friend whose pre-teen children have their own guns (true) and the whole family is into range shooting. The kids from other countries thought I was making it up, like a tall tale about a family of yee-hah rodeo cowboys or spy kids. They cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would actually hand firearms to minor children and teach them to shoot.[1]

Several US students are from the opposite end-- what's wrong with teaching a child about guns and letting them shoot? It's part of being an American. The African students talk about the abuse and trauma of child soldiers. The Asian students ask why you would want a gun in your home to begin with. The Latin kids say you hire an armed guard if you are worried about protecting your kids from kidnapping. I find myself mediating an argument between people from different planets. It is hard for me to be neutral when I am so wary of guns around children-- even if your kids are very responsible and trustworthy, their friends may not be![2]

The same parents who gave a gun to their 10 and 12-year old kids would not let them drive the family car or stay home alone for a week. They do not think they are mature enough to vote in elections or watch x-rated videos, or to experiment with drugs and alcohol. They would protect them from anyone who tried to recruit them as soldiers. But it is okay to entrust those children with the power of life and death, even under supervision.....

Look at the middle school bullying that drives some kids to attempt suicide. Look at the hazing rituals that high school students engage in. Look at the drunken parties that happen when parents are not at home. Add easy gun access. Hilarity most definitely does not ensue.

The same parents who gave a gun to their 10 and 12-year old kids would not let them drive the family car or stay home alone for a week. They do not think they are mature enough to vote in elections or watch x-rated videos, or to experiment with drugs and alcohol. They would protect them from anyone who tried to recruit them as soldiers. But it is okay to entrust those children with the power of life and death, even under supervision.....

I have had the same discussion with two prominent, level-headed forum members that I like and admire for various reasons, but they both just said "depends" when asked what the most appropriate age is for learning to use a firearm. This was not a "depends" based on mental health or maturity of the juvenile, either (a consideration automatically assumed), it was in consideration of most normal circumstances -- an all else being equal situation. I think they felt a bit cornered in relation to their own ownership and/or use of firearms, perhaps that is a wrong assumption on my part.

This debate tells me just how far ingrained in our culture the possession of firearms is, not that these two members are gun nuts, per se, but that by their own experience it is a ... rite of passage, perhaps, for a young man, in particular but not exclusively, to learn how to use a firearm and to have one to call his own. These same members also realize that the answer of "depends" is the appropriate response to other personal events, such as the age of first sexual encounter or the consumption of alcohol, just as examples.

Given my position on the forum and my responses in this thread, I would like for it to be understood clearly that I am not in favor of getting rid of guns. It is a nice thought exercise and certainly other countries have accomplished it to a great extent and show better behavioral results than we can show in the US. On this point, I am a pragmatist. There are too many already, people have the expectation to possess them, so we can't get rid of all of them. But why can't they be subject to an equal amount of treatment under the law when they are as much a safety hazard (or more) as a power drill, blender, hair dryer, nail gun, jack hammer, kerosene heater ... or an automobile?

The US Constitution only granted a mention of "arms" because they were available at the time -- the limits of such technology. The writers of the Constitution could not have foreseen the other technological advances and products that have become available and for which we have various laws and regulations (the automobile being only one example). This context of the firearm being a Constitutional right compared to other things available in our culture that are equally or less damaging, but for which we are comfortable with laws and regulations, demonstrates that guns are considered as sacred to gun owners as Jesus is to Christians. The fervor outweighs the rationality.

With respect to the Constitution, we have amended it a number of times to resolve inequities, such as the abolition of slavery, womens' suffrage, prohibition and its repeal ... why are guns so sacred? Or maybe guns aren't any more sacred than the other issues but that guns are the issue of the day and appear more sacred. If this forum is dedicated to rationality, then we should have rational discussions on all issues. I can only hope.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

^^^I agree completely. We have gotten to the point where it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about better policies for gun ownership in the US. If I bring up the way other countries deal with guns, I am accused of being anti-American.

Ironic, when it is worry about Americans killing each other and dying pointlessly that makes me want to talk about rational gun policy. If I did not care about America and Americans, I would just move to Canada and be done with it.[1]

We have started to become more sensible about homosexuality--it has taken decades, but being gay is no longer a big deal to many Americans. Compared to 50 years ago, we have made pretty rapid progress. I can remember, as a teen, being afraid to stand too close to the gay-related books in the bookstore for fear that people would suspect that I was gay. Yesterday I was looking for movies and looked through the LGBT section to see if there was anything interesting, the same way I looked at any other section. I felt no stigma or fear at all.[2]

We have started to act sensibly about drug use, at least as far as adults smoking weed is concerned. We have made some baby steps towards a universal health care program. Maybe we can make some progress on the gun thing, too. Sure, there will always be technology changing and some people will make their own garage band guns with 3-D printers. We will deal. Just like we don't allow someone to drive a car they made in their backyard on the road unless it meets certain standards, the plastic guns will have to meet a certain standard to qualify as legal.

The world will not end if gun owners are limited to a certain set of weapons, have to get a permit to buy one and pass a safety test to get licensed, and pay a registration fee so there is a fund to cover gun fails. I have hope.

Then they can carry it around and be all bad-a$$. Those of us who don't carry promise to cower and genuflect. Maybe we will even kneel like Loki wanted. Imagine him with a handgun in this scene instead of the staff. Wouldn't he look even cooler?

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

Then they can carry it around and be all bad-a$$. Those of us who don't carry promise to cower and genuflect. Maybe we will even kneel like Loki wanted. Imagine him with a handgun in this scene instead of the staff. Wouldn't he look even cooler?

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

Anyone with half of a brain (and there are a lot of people out there with more than half of a brain) knows that assault rifles do the least amount of death overall. You are more likely to be killed by a handgun in your own home than by an assault rifle. My local newspaper has a story of one that occurred recently -- appears to be another homocide-suicide among family members: mom, dad and infant son are no more. Death choice? Handgun.

You are skewing the gun debate by introducing assault rifles as the issue of assault rifles is a bit different than just Second Amendment rights or gun safety. Not only do assault rifles make for dramatic mass killings, like at schools, shopping malls or grocery stores, one has to wonder why anyone needs an assault rifle except for dramatic mass killings. I know people who have these firearms and they like to have them because they are fun. I would like to have some grenades because I think they are fun, but I am not allowed to possess grenades. Why?

Ultimately, a firearm isn't manufactured and sold because it is fun; it is manufactured and sold for a specific purpose. Nobody who goes out hunting for deer, turkey, squirrel, quail or snakes is going to use an assault rifle. For people hunting for other people, however, an assault rifle is the preferred weapon -- if available. Who is the largest consumer/user of assault rifles? The military. What is the primary purpose of an assault rifle in the military? To be able to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Hmmm.

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.

<links>

thank you for that.

Now, what is your point and how does this relate to it? Gun deaths dropped dramatically in the 90s. So did overall crime. According to the study you quoted and linked:

Quote

Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened

Violent crime rates depend on the percentages of young males in the population, how drug prohibition is handled, the unemployment rate, the availability of mental health care, etc.

This discussion is not about the criminal who really wants to rob a bank and kills someone along the way. Gun crime and gun violence where someone intentionally "and with malice aforethought", shoots another person, are different from the "gun fails" we are talking about.

We are more concerned here with the numbers of people hurt and killed accidentally or unintentionally, who would probably have been fine if not for the presence of the loaded gun in the situation. The argument between friends that escalates and someone grabs a gun; the kid who finds the gun and starts playing with it; the people who shoot guns off accidentally while cleaning them, while getting ready to hunt, at the gun show, at the shooting range, or because they are just being stupid.

Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.

Can't participate much in this thread right now, nine credits of college plus job hunt (got laid off a few weeks ago, and strangely, being unemployed seems to be harder work than actually having a job). But for whatever it may be worth, this came from my course materials for this week's homework. The boldface is mine, everything else is original.

One aside, by the way… this is the first criminology course I've ever taken, and one thing I've learned is that crime is far, far more complicated than I ever would have thought. The "fifty percent drop since 1973", for example, is probably not related -- at least, not in a significant way -- to firearms. Prevailing theory actually holds that it is more likely due to the legalization and increased availability of abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraceptives), reducing the number of unwanted births.

Yes, I'm trying to play nice, here. Because I really need to avoid getting sucked into this discussion. Homework is pounding me in the testicular region. Urgh.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The nation's violent crime rate fell 10 percent last year, continuing a trend observed since 1994, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. During the last 7 years the annual violent crime rate decreased about 50 percent – from 52 violent victimizations per 1,000 U.S. residents age 12 or older in 1994 to 25 per thousand in 2001. Violent victimization and property crime rates in 2001 are the lowest recorded since the National Crime Victimization Survey's inception in 1973. The number of criminal victimizations in 2001 was almost half that measured when the BJS survey commenced in 1973. There were an estimated 44 million personal and household crimes that year, compared to 24.2 million during 2001. In 2001 there were approximately 18.3 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft and household theft) and 5.7 million violent personal crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery and simple and aggravated assault). Last year's decline in violent crimes was primarily attributable to a drop in simple assaults. According to victim self-reports, most male victims of violence were victimized by strangers, whereas the majority of females were victimized by someone they knew ... About 1 in 3 victims of violence faced an offender armed with a weapon; 1 in 11 victims of violence said the offender had a firearm. Firearm use in crime has significantly declined - it accounted for 12 percent of all violent crime in 1994 and 9 percent in 2001. In 2001, victims reported that about 49 percent of violent crimes and 37 percent of property crimes they experienced were reported to police, a reporting rate similar to that in 2000 for both categories of crime. Violent victimizations against women were more likely to be brought to the attention of police than those against males. The data, from BJS' National Criminal Victimization Survey, a continuing survey of the U.S. public on their exposure to crime, also showed that between 1993 and 2001, a period in which the per capita rate of violence declined 50 percent and property crime fell 47 percent, specific crime categories showed the following declines: Rape/sexual assault - 56%; Robbery - 53; Aggravated assault - 56; Simple assault - 46; Household burglary - 51; Motor vehicle theft - 52; Household theft - 47. Between 1993 and 2000, FBI murder data show a decrease of 42 percent in the per capita rate of murder – a drop from 9.5 murders per 100,000 U.S. residents to 5.5 per 100,000 residents. The report, "Criminal Victimization 2001, Changes 2000-2001 with Trends 1993-2001" (NCJ-194610), was written by BJS statistician Callie Rennison. Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277. In addition, this document can be accessed at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv01.htm. For further information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics and other OJP programs, please see the OJP website at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov; Media calls should be directed to David Hess in OJP's Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at hessd@ojp.usdoj.gov or 202-307-0703. After hours: 877-859-8704.

Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened

The "fifty percent drop since 1973", for example, is probably not related -- at least, not in a significant way -- to firearms. Prevailing theory actually holds that it is more likely due to the legalization and increased availability of abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraceptives), reducing the number of unwanted births.

The only personal attribute that I have seen change since 1973 is our waistlines. People are getting progressively fatter each year, and you just have to consider that fatter people have a more difficult time in committing violent crimes. They just aren't physically fit.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

indicates that abortion by black women is now occurring at a higher rate than for whites, and at a much higher ratio among black births. Perhaps 20 years from now we will see the black crime rate go down?

I also find it interesting that Alaska legalized abortion before Roe v Wade. Amazing how such a (proclaimed) conservative state not only legalized abortion before Roe v Wade but is also a state where it remains legal, earning an A- from NARAL:

Where are the conservatives calling out Sarah Palin for her lack of effort to tighten abortion laws in her home state?

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Alaskans decriminalized reefer back in the 1970's and got on with their lives. They tend to be "independents" and "libertarians" ie people who always vote Republican because they think Democrats are negro-loving commie hippie big government wusses, but who are ashamed of their party's hypocrisy, incompetence, ignorance and inability to actually govern.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Alaska is the most dependent state there is[1] on the federal government for their livelihoods. Without the federal government there would be no military bases, no highways, no postal service. There would be no national parks--so no tourists and therefore no tourist jobs. There would be no food stamps or welfare, for all the "dog mushers", "trappers", "hunters" and "survivalists" who can't really survive that way.[2] Alaska is an artificial economy floating temporarily on big government and its natural resources. Like Dubai, only with snow instead of sand.

Alaskans decriminalized reefer back in the 1970's and got on with their lives. They tend to be "independents" and "libertarians" ie people who always vote Republican because they think Democrats are negro-loving commie hippie big government wusses, but who are ashamed of their party's hypocrisy, incompetence, ignorance and inability to actually govern.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Alaska is the most dependent state there is[1] on the federal government for their livelihoods. Without the federal government there would be no military bases, no highways, no postal service. There would be no national parks--so no tourists and therefore no tourist jobs. There would be no food stamps or welfare, for all the "dog mushers", "trappers", "hunters" and "survivalists" who can't really survive that way.[2] Alaska is an artificial economy floating temporarily on big government and its natural resources. Like Dubai, only with snow instead of sand.

Other unique stories worthy of special note this week: A man cleaning his loaded gun in a Texas hotel room accidentally shot through the wall and killed a woman in the next room, right in front of her husband and teenage son. A customer with a gun in his car accidentally shot a mechanic at a Missouri car dealership when he dropped his car off for service and went to move the weapon. A woman waiting for a SEPTA train in Philadelphia was accidentally shot in the face by a man rummaging through a bag in which he kept his gun. Among all the train noise, he didn't even hear the shot, and was seen on surveillance tapes calmly shouldering his bag and leaving on the next train. An armored car driver left his gun behind in the bathroom of a school in Colorado (and is not even the first armored car driver to do this in a school this year). And the pastor of a Texas church, shooting at a skunk in his backyard, accidentally shot through his fence and hit a neighbor.

The ones about people leaving guns in schools, etc. really make me nervous--if I saw a gun lying in a rest room, I don't even know what to do. Call 911 and wait until the police arrive, I suppose. I don't want to touch a random gun in case it was used by a criminal and has fingerprints. It could be loaded and I could drop it....

More guns around mean more guns forgotten in schools, etc. And these are sometimes people trained to use guns properly....imagine the chaos as more people get guns who are not even trained in firearm safety.